Amphibians and roads mitigation and compensation methods · Amphibians and roads – mitigation and...

Amphibians and roads – mitigation

and compensation methods

1

Marzenna Rasmussen/

mr@ amphi.dk

CONTENT

2

1. What negative impact have roads on amphibians

A. What and why amphibians are killed on the roads?

B. How high is a chance to cross the road?

C. How far amphibians migrate and what time of the day?

D. What kind of the barrier is a road?

2. How to counter- act?

A. Avoidance

B. Mitigation

C. Compensation

Why to care?

3

1.Legislation- national and international- permissions!

2.Requirements of funders- quality of EIA

3.Safety of road traffic

4.Duty to preserve natural heritage for the next

generations

What negativ impact and how to contr-act?

4

What amphibians are killed on the roads?

5

Common species, mass migrating: eg. Bufo

bufo, Rana temporaria, Rana arvalis

Important element in the food chain

Less common or rare species:

Triturus cristatus, Bombina bombina, Bufo

calamita, Bufo viridis, Pelobates fuscus

Góry Stołowe:

2 species – 20.000 indiv./ 250m

Suwałki-Budzisko:

9 species - >2-3.000 indiv./250m

Why amphibians are killed on the roads?

1. Amphibians move/migrate/disperse

a) Every day- within their home ranges

b) Seasonal- between breeding, foraging & hibernation places

c) Irregular – to find new habitats- young as well as mature individuals, often long distances

2. React too slow (senses, neural system), are cold blooded, not developed motoric or use out-dated escape strategies, now deadly.

6

fot.Jozef Curzydlo

How high is a chance to cross the road?

7

Hels & Buchwald, 2001, The effect of road

kills on amphibian populations

amphibians

Hare Hedgehog

100% killed if:

•app.2.500 v./24h –

Triturus vulgaris

•app.10.000 v./24h- Bufo

bufo, Triturus cristatus

•app.15.000v./24h-

Pelobates fuscus

•ok.17.000 v./24 h- brown

frogs

How far amphibians migrate?

8

What time of the day amphibians are killed?

9

Depends on distribution of

migration &

transportation intensity

during day/night.

1.All species- highest

mortality between 20-

23.00 and 5.00,

a) Brown frogs,

salamanders- during day

and night,

b) Pelobates-after 20.00

and app. 3.00;

Hels & Buchwald, 2001, The effect of road kills on

amphibian populations

What kind of barrier is road?

1. Between habitats – isolating breeding, foraging, hibernation habitats and lead to fragmentation (decreasing size or isolation of available habitats).

2. Divides meta-population causing isolation of populations and loss of their genetic material, can cause distinction of local populations

10

LOCALLY

LANDSCAPE

Cut or decrease movement/migration/dispersal:

Conclusion:

When assessing road impact it is necessary to

collect information about:

1. What species occur in the area influenced by

the road and how big are their populations?

2. What is the structure of amphibian meta-

populations? How many pond clusters, how

far from each other, which ponds are

important for breeding (centres), where are

hibernation sites, where are fouraging

habitats?

3. Where are conflict ’road sections’

11

What negativ impact and how to contr-act?

12

Contr- acting: avoidance

Avoidance of conflict

situations:

▫ - during planning- different

variants of the road trace,

▫ - during construction- avoiding

of creation of temporary water

bodies, filling in ponds outside of

breeding- hibernating season

13

Contr- acting: mitigation

Mitigation of negativ impact:

▫ - during construction: collecting

eggs, larvies, individuals,

temporary fencing

▫ -building amphibian/fauna

passage systems together with

guiding structures

14

•Inventory of 30km, in zone up to

7,5 km from the road 1999-2000

• 1.812 ponds investigated,

majority with Annex IV species of

Habitat Directive

Express road S8 Suwałki Budzisko

Mitigations:

-Investor: GDDKiA

O/Bialystok,

-3 amphibian tunnels

connected by fences

-Monitoring after

mitigations

Express Road S8 Suwalki-Budzisko (Andrzejewo)

Local road 45120, Jeleniów- Kudowa Zdrój,

National Park of Stołowe Mountains, Poland

17

-1998 inventory of breeding sites and ’hot spots’ of road kill - 8 sp. of amphibians, 2.000 killed on 220m of existing road (R.temporaria and B.bufo); -1999-2002: monitoring with drift fences 23.000 ampibians /year on 220m during III-IV (12.000 R.temporaria, 10.000 B.bufo, 1000 Triturus sp.)

Source: Topographic bacground. Geoportal.pl

What was done? Jeleniów (road 45120), National Park of Stołowe Mountains, Poland

2002: 4 tunnels (8-12 m long) connected by C-shaped concrete fence on both sides of the road (2x225m)

Source: Google Maps

No road-killed amphibians in the section with fences Tunnels: 19.III- 30.IV through tunnels: 15.639 R.temporaria, 2.248 B.bufo Road: 1,9 km (21 sections of 100m)- 1.076 indiv. 57% road killed, mainly B.bufo (442 indiv.)

Monitoring of function of amphibian passages (2003) Jeleniów (road 45120), National Park of Stołowe Mountains, Poland

Source: Baldy K (red.). 2003. Instrukcja czynnej ochrony plazow. p.60

Mitigation- temporary fencing

20

- temporary structures,

- special shape,

- different materials, plastic or metal net

gives a lot of problems!

Surface

without

vegetation

band

Not transparent, light

material, smooth, high enough

Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz

Baden-Württemberg (Hrsg.)(2000):

Baumaterialen für den

Amphibienschutz an Straβen. –

Fachdienst Naturschutz, Artenschutz

3:1-158.

Mitigation: Tunnels

21

Desiccation by increased

wind speed inside the

tunnels/only one year and

strong eastward migration

has changed to random

movement

Does lenght/shape/size of the tunnel matter?

Shape: as big as possible surface to walk, vertical walls max

90 degrees: speed of the movements.

Lenght: as short as possible

Round shape limited walking surface: diamiter 1,5m but 20-

30cm surface available to walk

Construction type

<20m 20-30m 30-40m 40-50m

Rectangular (open bottom!)

1,0m x 0,75m

1,5m x 1,0m

1,75m x 1,25m

2,0m x 1,5m

Culvert (diamiter)

1,0m 1,4m 1,6m 2,0m

Half round 1,0m x 0,7m

1,4m x 0,7m

1,6m x 1,1m

-

Źródło: IuellB. (red.),(2005).Veger og dyreliv.Nr.242 Statens vegvesen.

Too big opening

– increased

wind speed =

dessication

Mitigation: Tunnels:

22

Does water presence metters?

Usage of the tunnel by Pelobates has increased from 40

to 80% after covering the bottom of the tunel with 50mm

of sand (John,2003).

Most species will not use,

cannot be used instead of

proper tunnels

Used by all species,

moist soil bottom

23

polymer –concrete

stal

concrete

Mitigation: Tunnels. Does material matter?

What to do to improve existing structures?

24

Mitigation: Guiding structures

25

plastic

wood

metal

polymer-concrete

1.Durable (30-50 years), UV resistant, low

maintenance cost = concrete

2. Shape!

3. Elements well connected, as few

mountings as possible,

4. Stable basis, build in in the road side,

difficult to go under

concrete

26

concrete

Mitigation: Guiding structures

Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz Baden-Württemberg (Hrsg.)(2000): Baumaterialen für

den Amphibienschutz an Straβen. – Fachdienst Naturschutz, Artenschutz 3:1-158.

27

Mitigation: Side roads

Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz

Baden-Württemberg (Hrsg.)(2000):

Baumaterialen für den

Amphibienschutz an Straβen. –

Fachdienst Naturschutz, Artenschutz

3:1-158.

28

Even best designed systems fail because of low

quality of construction or lack of maintenance

Maintenance!!!!

Compensation

When other ways impossible – compensation of negative impact

Destroying habitats = recreation of habitats (important time aspect!)

Recreation of breeding sites- ecological requirements of different

species

Compensation of loss of connection between populations

Result- change of spatial organisation of meta-population/migration

and dispersal

29

Special thanks to:

30

Thanks for your

attention!

Lars C. Adrados

Krzysztof Baldy

Lars Briggs

Marie Thibault

Marzenna Rasmussen

mr@amphi.dk